- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Sesame Workshop sues SeaWorld in US Court over unpaid royalties and breaching norms
Sesame Workshop sues SeaWorld in US Court over unpaid royalties and breaching norms
Seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
Popular for the iconic children's TV show ‘Sesame Street’, Sesame Workshop has sued theme park operator SeaWorld in the US District Court in Manhattan, ending their decades-long association.
Sesame Workshop accused SeaWorld of withholding royalties and undermining the ‘Sesame Street’ brand.
It added that SeaWorld, a unit of United Parks & Resorts, had been its exclusive U.S. theme park licensee for 45 years. It opened several ‘Sesame Street’-themed parks and attractions featuring characters, including Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Elmo.
The American nonprofit educational television production and media company complained that SeaWorld ignored the 2017 licensing agreement, including withholding royalties. It also shut down some sites, including the closure of Sesame Place San Diego, temporarily.
Sesame Workshop explained that the matters came to a pass in September when SeaWorld stopped paying it royalties. Perhaps to end the association, it made ‘preposterous’ insinuations that we failed to invest in the trade.
The complainant furthered that SeaWorld’s retaliatory tactics posed an imminent threat to Sesame Workshop, as the former was bent upon tarnishing its reputation.
The company accused SeaWorld, known for the orca Shamu, of using its intellectual property without permission and "disappointing children and families" who hoped to visit the closed sites.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Orlando, Florida-based company, SeaWorld Entertainment, which changed its name to United Parks & Resorts in 2024, stated that it looked forward to "setting the record straight in court."
But the non-profit company added, “United Parks & Resorts has repeatedly failed to honor its contractual obligations, leaving Sesame Workshop no choice but to pursue litigation to protect our brand and the trust that families place in it.”
In September 2024, a District Court judge in Orlando upheld an arbitration ruling that SeaWorld pay Sesame Workshop over $11 million, including interest for breaching their licensing agreement.
However, SeaWorld had not paid until October 2025.
Sesame Workshop’s lawsuit has now sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.



